The battle's done, and we kind of won, so we sound our victory cheer: where do we go from here?
... a blog by Marc Lynch

September 10, 2007

What Iraqis Think, Again

What do Iraqis think about the surge? The first nationwide opinion survey since February has just been released, and it provides absolutely essential context for this week's debate over Iraq. The survey should help Americans cut through the spin and get a better view of what Iraqis really think. The BBC/ABC/NHK survey, conducted in all 19 provinces during August, finds that 70% of Iraqis believe that security has deteriorated in the areas covered by the US "surge", and 11% say it has had no effect. Only 11% say that security in the country as a whole has improved in the last six months. And 70% say that the conditions for political dialogue have gotten worse in the last six months. Bottom line: Iraqis overall, and especially Sunnis, are more opposed to
the American presence than ever, do not think the surge has
accomplished either its military or its political goals, and have dwindling confidence in the US forces.

Has Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy and the surge won respect for the American presence? No. Only 15% express confidence in US/UK occupation forces, down from 18% in February, with 58% expressing "no confidence at all" - the highest in any of these surveys dating back to 2003. 80% say that the US has done a bad job in Iraq. 79% oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse.

When should US forces leave? 47% say "leave immediately" - by far the highest support for immediate departure on record (it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say "remain longer but leave eventually".

What about the Sunnis, whose Great Awakenings and embrace of the United States has become the centerpiece of the Petraeus strategy and the great hope of KaganWorld? Only 1% of Sunnis say they have confidence in American forces. Only 1% of Sunnis support the American presence in Iraq. Only 1% of Sunnis say that security has improved in Iraq as a whole in the last 6 months. 72% of Sunnis say that the US forces should leave immediately. 95% of Sunnis say that the presence of US troops makes security worse. 93% still see attacks on coalition forces as acceptable.

Other interesting findings:

You'll recall that the explicit purpose of the surge was to create the conditions for political dialogue. 70% see "conditions for political dialogue" as having gotten worse in the last six months.

When asked about how things are going in Iraq, 78% say "quite bad"or "very bad", up from 66% in February. Only 22% say "quite good" or "very good". Among Sunnis, home of the great Awakenings, only 2% say that the situation is good, and none say "very good."

56% described the "security situation" in the neighborhood in which
they live as bad, up slightly from 53% in February, while only 24% say
that the security situation in this neighborhood has improved in the
past six months. 79% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood is bad - despite all those American walking tours of happy, safe markets. Only 7% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood has improved in the last 6 months, and only 6% feel safe in their neighborhood.

Don't get too excited that 43% say that the
neighborhood in which they currently live is relatively safe, because
it's probably because this is where they fled to escape from ethnic
cleansing: 74% describe their "freedom of movement - the ability to go
where you wish safely" as bad, and 77% say that "freedom to live where
you wish without persecution" is bad. An astonishing 98% say that the separation of people along sectarian lines is a bad thing.

Only 35% think that an American withdrawal will make civil war more likely, 46% say less likely.

About that soft partition boomlet? 62% prefer a unified Iraq, 28% a soft partition, and 9% a full partition.

65% say that the current national government is doing a bad job, and 66% disapprove of Maliki personally.

Anyone who cares what Iraqis think about America's strategy in Iraq should pay very careful attention to this public opinion survey.

It seems to me that there's no contradiction at all between Sattar et al working with the U.S. recently and the fact that prett much all of the Sunni Iraqis want the U.S. gone. After all, most Anbaris probably don't want to have an AQI/ISI strong enough to take over once the Americans are gone.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - the headline of the article, "Sunni bloc returns to Iraqi parliament", leaves in doubt the specific Sunni bloc in question. The context, a few days ago, was one in which there was much speculation that the Tawafuq Bloc would agree to a face saving compromise ahead of the Petraeus/Crocker report and return to the government. The tag was only meant to signal the limited importance of the Parliamentary return, which had nothing to do with the government level crisis on which most people at the time were focused. I could have been more specific in the tag, but I wasn't. Sorry about that.

The demerit of the BBC/ABC poll has always been that, on the face of it, its sample overweights the Sunni Arabs and underweights the Kurds.

For instance, in the question as to whether the respondants consider attacks on Coalition forces to be "acceptable" the poll gives a 57% affirmative, breaking it down to 93% of Sunni Arabs questioned, 50% of Shiites and 5% of Kurds.

Going on the known demographics of Iraq - Sunni Arabs 20% Kurds 20% Shia 60% - the 57% affirmative reported indicates the poll sample weighted the Sunni Arabs between 28 and 30% and the Kurds between 10 and 12%.

If the sample had followed the 60/20/20 demographic the "acceptable" vote would have been slightly under than 50% and the "unacceptable" slightly more than 50.

Ergo, the polls are skewed to Sunni Arab negative reactions on every question.

He spent a week in Iraq in late July and has an awful lot of pictures of Iraqis that sure seem happy that US troops are there. Sunnis, at that. He has an ample description of near-universal, *extremely* positive Iraqi Sunni reaction to US forces - something he contrasts in some ways with Baghdad and the belts.

I have a lot of respect for both sites, as both seem to be square dealers, but Mike's public opinion samples varies head-explodingly from these polls.

Can you give me any insight into this? I know Ramadi has about 500K people and the Iraqi sunni population is .. 5 million or so. The Ramadi experience should move these numbers all by itself...
Something is wrong.

An Iraqi man explained -- and a Democratic Senator and a Republican Congressman confirmed -- the reason Mahdi is worse than Al-Qaeda, is Sadr/Mahdi wants a *UNIFIED* Iraq, which he stated, while Al-Qaeda wants a separatist Iraq, separate religious enclaves.

Well, not only Al-Qaeda.
So does Malaki and Hakim and the Badr Organization.

see “Graham: We Must Defeat Militias ‘Backed By Iran’ By Siding With Militia Backed By Iran”

see Ron Paul debating Patraeus on Youtube (I'm not voting for Ron Paul)

see "Iran thanks the brave American soldiers!"

The US-backed Iraqi govt is more pro-Iranian than Sadr, most pro-Iran group in the country.
Malaki and Hakim are Separatists, for a separate "Shiastan", aligned with Iran.

Who else is for Separation?
Bush.
Israel's "Clean Break" strategy.
the Trilateralists.
Senator Biden, who already proposed to break up Iraq in 2007.

Who's for a unified Iraq?
The majority.
Sadr/Mahdi.
The elected Legislature.

Who is the US bombing? Sadr.

The strategy all along was to divide and conquer Iraq, NOT to heal it, NOT to keep it together. To use ethnic cleansing to divide it, then divide it politically.

That's what's been happening, because that's what was SUPPOSED to be happening. No mistakes, not the kind people are saying.

Sadr/Mahdi wants EVERYONE out of Iraq, including Iranians, the US, the Brits, Israeli intell, and the UN.